Re: Draft: Extended mensural notation support

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/23/15 10:38 AM, "Lukas Pietsch" <address@hidden> wrote:

>I have a working draft of the Lilypond coding, which involves quite a bit
>of
>Scheme code, a patched Lilypond font with a section of new proposed
>glyphs,
>and a few minor patches to Lilypond's C++ codebase. Unfortunately, owing
>to
>the latter, the whole system currently works only with a patched,
>custom-compiled Lilypond installation. I'd like to hear if there's
>interest
>among the Lilypond folks to merge these extensions into the standard
>distribution, and how best to proceed to do so.

Wow -- this seems like a tremendous amount of work!  I'm basically
ignorant of mensural notation, but this seems like a great advance.

I think it should be implemented in LilyPond.  And I think that the things
you have found in LilyPond that are inconsistent with best practices (e.g.
the incorrect use of "flexa" when it should be "obliqua" or "oblonga";
misnomer  of maxima and longa rests) should be fixed.

It would seem that the way to go about fixing this is to create a patch
for submission.  The patch should explain the need for all the changes in
the codebase, and should include regression tests for new features added.
If there are any changes (like changing the name of the long rests) that
will affect existing files, a convert-ly rule should be developed.

I'd encourage you to add this to the codebase.

Thanks,

Carl